Budget

[Keef]

Marmora Man Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Keef,

>

> Too many people go to university these days. I was

> lucky and came up thru' the Grammar / Technical /

> Secondary Modern school system where anyone from

> any strata of society** could get to a good school

> and on to university if he / she was bright enuf.

> By the time I was at university about 12% of all

> 19 - 21 year olds went. This system nurtured many

> of today's politicians and leaders of industry /

> commerce who were not all from a privileged elite.

> There was greater social mobility then than now.

>

> With fewer at University the available funding can

> be provided at no cost to the student. It's only

> the pointless expansion to a target of 50%

> (plucked from the air) that has meant the end of

> student grants that earlier generations were

> fortunate enuf to receive.

>

> ** Yes I know the system wasn't perfect and some

> chose not to go to The Grammar" because of the

> cost of uniform or the need to contribute to

> family incomes - but the Crossman led campaign

> against grammar schools targeted the wrong end of

> the problem - it wasn't that the grammar schools

> were creaming off the best but that the secondary

> modern schools were failing the less academic.

Sorry for delay, only just seen this, but basically I agree fully with it. I think there should be less uni places, just so long as it's the most talented / bright kids filling them... Problem will still be that the kids in the expensive private secondary schools will get the best grades, and all get places, leaving the rest to scrap for what is left, but there you go.

[Ted Max]

Or ... if only 20% of all kids should get in to University, say, you could propose that only the top performing 20% of those at private schools get into Uni.

The rest of them can either join the army, clergy or go into The Company.

[snorky]

Brendan Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Yeah I know. But in theory all investors are ?part

> of the world? so if the whole world is in dept who

> is profiting from the interest? Surely they can?t

> be in dept too? Whose economy are their profits

> being fed into or are the profits not as important

> as the political puppet strings that come with

> national dept?

>

> Seriously why don?t we tell them to go @#$%&

> ?emsleves? What are they going to do? The lack of

> any profit they make being fed back into our

> economy surely can?t be worse than having it as a

> deficit in public spending?

Where to start on this ?

the first thing is to remember that for the IB & Insurance industry, these debts have not just materialsied- every time your pension portfolio or ISA tracker increased in the past deacde & you patted yourswelf on the back for your wise choice, it was on the basis of profits from these companies - their dividends and their numbers boosted everything they touched, from pension managers to house prices to flat screen TVs

You have to remember that profits , as stated in the books, as used to determine bonuses, as used to work out the shareholders dividend, are not usually physical cash, swilling around in a safe somewhere - this is not a greengrocers where the profits can be guaged by the weight of pound coins in their pocket at the end of the week. Profits also include higher valuatuations in their assets- and for much of the past decade, their asset valuations have been increasing year on year - quite remarkable. Little real physical cash is available - even dividends are often held in scrip format for tax efficiency reasons

the problems is that - as every Guardian reader now knows and is more than willing to lecture all and sundry with his newly learned head shaking and tuttung wisdom - if these assets are "toxic" & their valuations are based on industry accepted flights of fancy, then understanding the previous decade of year on year record profits may make more sense.

That mortgage you raised last year - ?500K for that des res on Underhill road - even you were surprised they gave the multiple needed and that you were able to get it so easily & so quickly - where do you think this money came from ?

We can't tell them to get stuffed, because we are all - inmplicity or explicity - party to the boom years party so to speak. You cant expect to juggle chain saws all day and not expect at some point to draw blood

We are all to blame, some more than others, but lets not get into the pointy finger blame game - its cheap Daily mail & Guardian reader diversionary rubbish - bankers are still cogs in the global mechanism of capital, as are we all

[Marmora Man]

Ted Max Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Or ... if only 20% of all kids should get in to

> University, say, you could propose that only the

> top performing 20% of those at private schools get

> into Uni.

>

> The rest of them can either join the army, clergy

> or go into The Company.

Or better still - improve state education to the point where private education becomes redundant - as was becoming the case in the 60's until political point scoring decided that grammar schools were diversive and elitist.

If the Butler Act education reforms had been left alone (perhaps with some upward tweeking of quality at the Secondary Moderns & Technical schools) we would today be left with just a handful of private schools - used mostly for expensive babysitting by those unable (thru' overseas employment / Armed Forces commitments etc) or unwilling to look after their children at home.

[Brendan]

Marmora Man Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

>

> Or better still - improve state education to the

> point where private education becomes redundant -

> as was becoming the case in the 60's until

> political point scoring decided that grammar

> schools were diversive and elitist.

That?s exactly what I always say. It?s all very well and good criticizing the private school system for being elitist and entrenching privilege in society but degrading it to less than it is would just be counter productive.

I would be all for getting rid of private schools all together but only if state education was raised to a comparable level.

[SeanMacGabhann]

Scanning the Sunday papers, looking for a Cameron pledge to roll back the new 50% tax rate.... Haven't found it yet

Maybe, just maybe the mantra "it won't bring in revenue and may well be less" isn't *gasp* true

[????]

or maybe in envy politics UK, Cameron knows the "helping his posh chums" headlines are politically damaging.....and he hasn't therefore the balls to say what an economic disater they are.....which they are

[SeanMacGabhann]

doesn't show a great deal of conviction or trust in the electorate

But then again I believe the electorate share a large slice of culpability in the whole mess

[????]

Mea Culpa Sean, Mea Culpa

...we're all in right mess and, actually, it's not just the fault of Sir Fred or the rich or even Gordon and comical Ali

[????]

The Budget however is a disgrace- and expose GB as caring more about his own political future than our country. The man is a disgrace and should go now - no hope obviously. This country looks pretty f*cked whatever and the private sector is being asked to pay for all of it by Labour..the war that's coming is not class, but public versus private sector.....

[SeanMacGabhann]

Quids I know we disagree but I'm not getting the leaps you are making. I get you despise new labour (I'm not far behind you on that) but even so

Let;'s say labour had some balls and for the last ten years pushed through the kind of regulatory system that would have prevented the current travails. Are you saying that the papers, the media and the general election would have been grateful? because I'm pretty sure they amount of hysteria about jobs lost would have seen them voted out. i could be wrong, it's just an opinion.... but even so I stand by it. So yes I may not be pointing the finger at you and your sarcastic mea culpas but the collective "we" is at fault

Is the private sector being asked to pay for everything? Did I miss a memo - how do you make that out?

[????]

my Mea Culpa wasn't sarcastic Sean

[Mick Mac]

Sean - I was a fan of New labour and helped vote them in in 97 and subsequent years, But this is not New Labour - Old Labour is resurgent, this 50% rate would never have happended under Tony Blair.

Cameron will not denounce it as he does not have to - Labour votes may not have been lost over this but they were already on their way out. I for one will find it hard to vote for them again.

The Times today says the entrepreneurs are leaving the UK, the image of the UK as a place to attract the best has been tarnished.

Any chance we can have Tony Blair back?

[Marmora Man]

Is the private sector being asked to pay for everything? Did I miss a memo - how do you make that out?

Sean, By definition the private sector pays for everything. Government spends taxes - these are raised primarily from taxes on goods, business and, to a lesser extent, from taxes on individuals. Since the public sector doesn't produce anything it is not creating any taxable revenues - and while the significant proportion of the workforce that is now public sector employed pay their taxes this is simply recycling government money.

Governments often assume that they are spending "Government money" but they're not, they are spending money raised by taxes on the private sector. This government has achieved the neat trick of raising money not just from today's private sector but from tomorrow's also due to it's excessive spending over the last 12 years and current borrowing.

[SeanMacGabhann]

the private sector doesn't pay for most things, much less everything

private sector pays as little as possible to get people to do it's work for it. The people do the work and get a wage/salary. That's (give or take) the end of the deal for the private sector. And that's fine.. nothing wrong with that, everyones a winner

Now people are also citizens of a country and we collectively pay into a kitty. This is not some New Labour trickery - it's what every single democracy does. And it works. If you can point to another country or a point in time where it doesn't work, I'm all ears. The main problem with the finances at the moment is not years of overspending - to pretend that it's not the huge private sector companies that threatened the fabric of our societies is just nuts. It's the injection of our/government money that is keeping things afloat. And yes it's a lot but people are blowing the debt way out of proportion. Not only is it a tolerable level of debt (better than japan's for example), all it takes is for people in work to stop whining, recognise the challenge ahead, pay up and get on with it

To listen to people complain about how the budget did nothing "for them" - like they expect something. Imagine how these peolpe would cope if we had to go back to rations. The poor dears would implode.

[Tony.London Suburbs]

SeanMacGabhann Wrote:

recognise the challenge ahead, pay up and get on with it.....

Absolutely spot on!

Work hard! Pay your taxes and ruddy well deal with it, please Guys....

Neither National or Local Government has any money of its own and needs your full support to maintain our glorious NHS, our marvellous Welfare State and Benefit System and to keep an increasing percentage of us in the Pensions and dotage that we deserve.

Every Man and Woman should rise up and do their duty for this wonderful Nation of ours, that I. for one, am proud to be a part of.. (puffs out chest in patriotic pride)...

Now if you would, knidly, excuse me I have a garden to tend to b4 taking the g/f and dogs for a walk b4 I enjoy a well-earned day out with my "Zones 1-4" Day Pass to get me around our great Metropolis...

[Marmora Man]

My mind boggles at the mixed arguments in your brief response.

I'll grant you that the private sector is made up of individuals working in the private sector - but without business and its employees there would be no income to be taxed. Low costs are the secret of business success - not some kind of perverse incentive. The man / company / country that can make a widget at least cost and same quality will, usually, win the most business.

To lay the blame for UK's current situation solely at the feet of "the private sector" is illogical. The public sector has grown at a rate far in excess of the GDP - it has not yielded the efficiencies promised by the government and the difference has been funded by borrowing and increased taxes.

GDP 1997 = ?815.9bn

a. Govt Spend 1997 = ?318.3bn (39.01% of GDP)

b. GDP 2010 = ?1,412.0 (Red book estimate)

c. Govt Spend 2010 = ?677.8bn (48% of GDP - a 23% growth in ratio, funded by extra tax and / or borrowing)

d. GDP growth '97 - '10 = 173%

e. Govt spend growth = 212%

The difference between d. and e. illustrates the failure of this government.

I have no objection to paying for necessary government spending. I dispute strongly the need for large government and high taxes (as you know quite well). I do not believe the government has the right to take more than 50% of anyone's income - no matter what their income or profession. The taxes on earning more than ?100,000 are spiteful, politically inspired and unlikely to generate anything like the sums quoted by comical Ali. It has, as ever, transpired that the small print of the budget indicates that the ?100,000 ands ?150,000 thresholds are not going to be uprated in line with inflation so fiscal drag will capture more and more people in this cynical tax ploy - it will be salaried staff on PAYE that pay the extra taxes and not the "super rich" who will be able to avoid this tax thru' careful tax planning. So yet again the more ordinary middle class professional will suffer.

[Brendan]

One could argue that if employers distributed money more evenly between the highest and lowest earners and if the financial services industry didn?t create conditions which overvalued property in order to inflate their profits all the millions of people on lower wages would not need government support in order to house and feed themselves and the hard done by middleclass professionals like you and I would not have to bear the increased tax burden.

Not that I think our government has any intention of trying to uplift the poor.

[Brendan]

And considering the sentiments I hear from the Tories I work with neither do they.

[Brendan]

It would be interesting to know exactly how much of that increased spending went to the military.

[SeanMacGabhann]

I'm not sure where my mixed arguments are

I am not debating the fact that government spending has increased - I just don't believe it is critical to the situation we find ourselves in. Had the government not had to step in to bail out various banks, and had teh banksthemselves looked after their business properly, governments globally would not have to deal with the fallout. that surely is the single biggest factor by some distance in all of this?

[Alan Brady]

Couldn't lend us a fiver could you Sean?

[red devil]

agree with Sean, banks have behaved irresponsibly and are morally bankrupt (pun most definitely intended), it's funny how the tories and their supporters whinge about the nanny state, too much state control etc but then complain that because the banks weren't regulated enough by the government that's the reason why we're in the proverbial...

[AllforNun]

good old gordon an co ! it going to be an election windfull for us all.

In an interview with the telegraph a furious Jon Wood hedge fund manager of the giant SRM Global has mounted a savage attack on the government

"the treasury under this government has STOLEN controlling stakes in several major banks when these holding are floated, and that will be soon, the government are going to make Billions and Billions and Billions"

oh well i am sure you will all join me in Saying 'Bad Luck' but hey were all in the money ! oh i love this lark where can i sign up for some more x

[Marmora Man]

It would be interesting to know exactly how much of that increased spending went to the military.

Defence spending '97 = ?25.2bn

Defence spending '10 = ?39.5bn

That's a 56% increase over 13 years - compared with a 73% increase in GDP and a 112% increase on Gov't spending. During that period Britain's Armed Forces have been involved in two wars - lost upwards of 300 personnel killed and over 5,000 wounded, many severely - throughout that period it has been claimed by those with real knowledge of current defence matters that the forces needed better equipment and support.